I want to say one more thing. In my proposal, the chairman, I hope you agree with me, should be @alefattorini.

He’s both the “community guy” and the “enterprise guy”. The community is here thanks to his vision and effort. He’ll be the best tie-breaker in the early days of this structure. In the future the committee could elect another chairman and/or another community manager if they want.

@flatspin I think everyone here wants the win-win balance keeps going on in the future too… Another thing. Nethesis has now the control of this project and its resources. We cannot ignore this fact. A governance that arises from what we are now must take it into account.

For starters I can agree with a 50-50 split. But in the end we should avoid decisions that represent a 51-49 vote count. Then a (very) large minority is not voiced in the decision and leaves space for debate (and worse: arguing and discontent)

Now a more practical question: (sometimes being pragmatic might turn into skipping steps, one of my major pitfalls)
If we decide to have a board, how do we implement communitcation between board, teams and community? Do we ask to give detail reports? Do we just ask to post developments on forum? What procedures and security measurements do we create if decisions need to be taken fast? Or decisions that are taken when a large minority or even majority is against it?
What if a decision is forced under thread of cutting funds by one or more (future) parties. This has happened with Zentyal and we all know how that ended: a more or less dead project.

But in the end we should avoid decisions that represent a 51-49 vote count

I agree. Our style is growing consensus and we must going on with it. But… Sometimes we need to decide. And when it comes to hard decisions one head one vote is the best solution the mankind invented so far!

That’s the reason because 6+1 seems too few for me. But to get the right number of seats we should define the electorate. Who can elect the board? How many people? The number of seats should be proportionate to the number of people that can be elected and to the number of voters.

In my proposal, the chairman, I hope you agree with me, should be @alefattorini

I think @alefattorini would be a very good chairmen, but we don’t have to forgett that he’s paid by nethesis (not meaned badly).
At this moment this is not a problem, but for example there are some changes by nethesis, and a new boss is coming and wants something special, what is not good for the community. If this is happening @alefattorini has to give his vote for it. It could be a problem for him, it could decide about his job.
These are only my thoughts and of course the worst case.

I disagree, because there are other instances involved anyhow (the groups e.g.) and decision making for crisis is much easier in a small group- and that is what we need it for. Other decision normally are done in a much bigger contest anyhow. So communication in these settings will be crucial in a growing community. We should think e.g. of voting systems- just to get the opinion, not to decide finally.

Fully agree. With this rule a board of for example 4 Nethesis and 3 Community members is no problem because a 4 to 3 decision means to find another solution. And I have to point out that at the moment there is absolutely no reason for seeing it like Nethesis vs Community. But I understand we should also talk about worst case scenarios.

davidep:

I want to say one more thing. In my proposal, the chairman, I hope you agree with me, should be @alefattorini.

Fully agree. Absolutely top community leader having an eye on everything.

I believe that an odd number less than 10 and greater than 7 is a good alternative in this transition to a more participative community that allows Nethesis - a great Nethserver sponsor - to meet the most important demands of the market and the global community.

In this transition the president has to be @alefattorini because it is because of him - and the tribe - of his ability to call and community management that we have reached this point.

Surely the proposals of greater democracy / networkcracy raised by @davidep have an excellent base with a council of medium size among the proposed.

I want to enlist in supporting the educational team and continue supporting the translation team. I admit that I have reduced participation but I also admit that I can not and I do not want to get away.

I think everyone here wants the win-win balance keeps going on in the future too… Another thing. Nethesis has now the control of this project and its resources. We cannot ignore this fact. A governance that arises from what we are now must take it into account.

I’m aware of these aspects, but still not 50/50 and that’s a good thing. The number should be odd, so no parity can arise. I like @Jim 's proposal.

I’m not blocked by the number of members of the board. I like the idea of 50-50 from nethesis and the community, but the idea of 55% nethesis and 45% community doesn’t satisfy me. I would like the exact parity !

At the end if the board doesn’t agree on a consensus, probably it is already a failure state. If you want an umpair number of board member, I would propose that the advantage would be done to the community.

Concerning the chairman, I’m sorry but it is the board members who need to elect it, I agree it can be alessio, or someone else, however it is the board stuff and after the election , they will decide.

the election can not be for 6 months, at least for 1 year, and with the system I have in mind, individual can go to the election, you don’t go by a list. Of course a coherent team can be elected, but we must not block a guy if he want to go alone to the board. That is democracy.

the bad side that we are speaking, it is we need to create the legal framework of this. Probably it will be the job of the first board, write and decide how will be done the governance…once done the next election will be on the good rails

Sure, I agree with the odd number. I think everyone here wants an odd number. The chairman/community manager is the 11th seat and has the mandate to represent everyone in the community. It’s like this by definition of community manager!

davidep:

The number of seats should be proportionate to the number of people that can be elected and to the number of voters.

I think the 50-50 is not the good thing:
What about the case opinions are opposites.

I think the just number board is 5 Guys!

To avoid te 50-50 vote!

You’re right. We all agree an odd number is a requirement and I think nobody still proposed an even number of seats.

However, I think numbers 3 and 5 are too few. A such group can be easily influenced. Also could be difficult to give voice to minorities. A non-trivial decision requires enough shades of opinions to be represented. 7 is still few IMO but, ok, it could be a compromise. I’d rather prefer 9, 11.

Jim:

Why 5:

one for developper point of view

one for the quality point of view ( control quality, possibles problem…)

one for strategic point of view

one for the community point of view

one for organizational, coordinatîng point of view

As said, a group of delegates should be big enough to include different points of view. Moreover a delegate should not necessarily be an expert. He should listen to experts and other community members to grow an opinion though. Public discussions and debates like we’ve done so far and we’ve to going on that way!